Big Oil Faces 200 Climate Change Resolutions Next Year

Exxon, Anadarko, and their peers, along with big players in other industries, will face as many as 200 resolutions regarding climate change at their 2017 annual shareholder meetings.

This is according to filings of resolutions that are tracked by Ceres, a non-profit organization of investors, environmental advocacy groups, and businesses. The number of climate-related resolutions for 2017 is a record-high: this year there were 174 of them, 167 in 2015, and 148 in 2014. Most of these have had limited success.

According to Fund Votes, a research firm quoted by Reuters, since 2014, the rate of success of these resolutions among S&P 500 companies has been about 22 percent. Yet what is perhaps more important is the fact that the number of resolutions is rising despite the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.

President-Elect Trump repeatedly dismissed climate change as a hoax and vowed to revive the U.S. energy industry. But after the election, he told the New York Times that he’d have “an open mind about climate change.”

The green drive is maintaining its momentum, it seems. On Tuesday, Ceres reported that a group of large investors from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australasia had released an updated edition of a guide concerning investor expectations from oil and gas companies about climate change.

The document details what these investors see as challenges for the energy industry in the context of the Paris agreement, and what moves they expect the companies to make in addressing environmental challenges.

One of the companies in for a climate-related resolution is Anadarko Petroleum. Shareholders in the company want it to detail how it will deal with so-called stranded assets, or higher-cost assets that have become uneconomical to develop at lower oil and gas prices.

Exxon, for its part, after years of climate change denial, may have to welcome an environmental activity to its board, following a resolution to that effect that was passed this year.

Let's make the substance that powers the modern world, and has allowed average people to live better than kings did 100 years ago, prohibitively expensive. Why? Because sometime in the future, there may be a slightly increased risk to some types of weather phenomena...maybe.
Ultimately, I really don't care what the cost is, I can afford it.
How about the poor?

All petroleum lifted from the crust of the earth is miniscule compared to the amount of the total crust which is incinerated due to SUBDUCTION of the crust.

1. over 45,000 miles of Subduction zone around the earth, Multiplied by
2. 30 miles , on average, thickness of the crust, multiplied by
3. 5 cm, on average per annum, subduction.

That is a HUGE mass, Millions of times more than all petroleum, coal, natgas.
That includes ALL of the hydrocarbons, plus all of the mineral carbonates and other mineral formations locking up CO2.
It is ALL incinerated when drawn down into the outer mantle and spit out.
Further additional material is lifted on the opposing side of the subduction zone which is weathered away into the atmosphere.

The planet has recycled this natural pollution for eons.

Doufas Gowk on November 27 2016 said:

Everyone with half a brane knows that climate change is a hoax. Exxon scientists knew as early as 1980 that the earth's climate was cooling so quickly that massive efforts would be required to keep the earth from going into the most worst ice age ever in the intire history of the world. Now it is only the liberals from those east coast ivory league universities like Dook and Stanferd that keep telling us that climate change is real, but we know it's a hoax, pure and simple.